Nolan's Batman was – from the very start – never intending to do it forever. That's also clear throughout the whole trilogy.

It's a very different approach to the character and I guess you either love or hate it. But from the context of Nolan's Batman, the ending to TDKR was very fitting.

The "real" batman never intended to do it forever either.
In the context of Nolan's batman, the director just had to exercise his utter power and actually retire a hero within the context of his trilogy.

The "real" batman never intended to do it forever either.
In the context of Nolan's batman, the director just had to exercise his utter power and actually retire a hero within the context of his trilogy.

...would have accepted it if he actually killed him.

I find the ending of TDKR great, but i feel killing Bruce off would have been a more..i don't know.. definitive ending. I would have been okay with it, hell going in to the film, i thought he was going to die at the end.

Nolan's Batman was – from the very start – never intending to do it forever. That's also clear throughout the whole trilogy.

It's a very different approach to the character and I guess you either love or hate it. But from the context of Nolan's Batman, the ending to TDKR was very fitting.

Well, one could argue that that approach represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the character. However, even though I was open to the idea of Bruce retiring from Batman and passing the mantle onto his successor like earth-2 Bruce did in the Silver Age, for me, Nolan's ending was utterly unsatisfying. It just didn't feel right that Batman's entire career was reduced to a 2 year fight against organized crime and then one last adventure 8 years later. I really hope they don't do anything similar to that with the MOS series.

Well, one could argue that that approach represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the character. However, even though I was open to the idea of Bruce retiring from Batman and passing the mantle onto his successor like earth-2 Bruce did in the Silver Age, for me, Nolan's ending was utterly unsatisfying. It just didn't feel right that Batman's entire career was reduced to a 2 year fight against organized crime and then one last adventure 8 years later. I really hope they don't do anything similar to that with the MOS series.

Well I guess the difference between Nolan's Batman and Snyder's Superman in terms of realistic approaches is that Superman's body can actually take the toll of committing himself towards keeping the world safe for countless years.

You won't see him having issues with his knees or bones because his body is invulnerable; any injury that he takes can be healed with the right amount of yellow sun radiation.

I guess what'll help in terms of knowing on where they might take the character for his proverbial journey throughout this intended franchise is learning on what his major goal is in MOS. Bruce stated in BB that he wanted to make a change in Gotham's city; thus, when Gotham was cured of its disease and people took arms in defending themselves, then his work would be completed. So in Superman's case, what would be his proverbial goal then? Knowing that will help in trying to determine on what his concluding journey will potentially be like.

Well I guess the difference between Nolan's Batman and Snyder's Superman in terms of realistic approaches is that Superman's body can actually take the toll of committing himself towards keeping the world safe for countless years.

You won't see him having issues with his knees or bones because his body is invulnerable; any injury that he takes can be healed with the right amount of yellow sun radiation.

I guess what'll help in terms of knowing on where they might take the character for his proverbial journey throughout this intended franchise is learning on what his major goal is in MOS. Bruce stated in BB that he wanted to make a change in Gotham's city; thus, when Gotham was cured of its disease and people took arms in defending themselves, then his work would be completed. So in Superman's case, what would be his proverbial goal then? Knowing that will help in trying to determine on what his concluding journey will potentially be like.

I think Superman's mission will be to unite the entire populace of the world.

Well I guess the difference between Nolan's Batman and Snyder's Superman in terms of realistic approaches is that Superman's body can actually take the toll of committing himself towards keeping the world safe for countless years.

You won't see him having issues with his knees or bones because his body is invulnerable; any injury that he takes can be healed with the right amount of yellow sun radiation.

I guess what'll help in terms of knowing on where they might take the character for his proverbial journey throughout this intended franchise is learning on what his major goal is in MOS. Bruce stated in BB that he wanted to make a change in Gotham's city; thus, when Gotham was cured of its disease and people took arms in defending themselves, then his work would be completed. So in Superman's case, what would be his proverbial goal then? Knowing that will help in trying to determine on what his concluding journey will potentially be like.

Urghh, don't give me that realistic approaches junk about Bruce's body. Nolan departs from "realism" plenty when it is necessary for the story. Remember the guy missing half his face going around and crashing cars with himself inside? Or how the Batsuit somehow protects Bruce's body from injury in 10 story falls? Or the microwave emitter vaporizes water in tubes but not in human bodies or anywhere else?

Realism is no excuse for poor storytelling. Just because Bruce's body could probably only endure a couple of years as Batman does make it satisfying for him to face 4 baddies, retire for 8 years, and come back and fight 2 more.

Why is he all of a sudden not interesting enough now? He's done fine the last 70 years. How do you think he ended up being Superman's arch enemy in the first place?

Superman has a great Rogues Gallery too. But, using your logic that Terrence Stamp is the only reason Zod is cool, why can't the movie version just awesome up whatever villain they use next?

Apologies, I probably haven't expressed my point clearly - Lex Luthor, although I think he's a good villain (I like Lex more than I like the Joker), is in my opinion simply not that interesting cinematically. He doesn't translate well into a movie villain. In movies you don't have the time to establish a character like you do in a comic book run or a tv series, so effective villains need to be captivating or at the very least have a good visual gimmick.

Lex Luthor hasn't been a successful movie villain. I like Gene Hackman but his Lex was little more than comic relief, and definitely nowhere close to being a timeless movie villain. Kevin Spacey's Lex was boring and had no defining psychology.

Think about all the truly great movie villains. Darth Vader, The Joker, Hannibal Lecter, Anton Ciguhr, Bill the Butcher, Magneto, there are all larger than life characters, and they are either exceptionally archetypal (Ciguhr, Joker, Darth Vader, Lecter) or extremely complex and borderline sympathetic (Bill the Butcher, Magneto), sometimes both.

Lex Luthor has never really been all that complex, and every time the comic have managed to make him seem a little deeper or more sympathetic, you must realise that because this was in a comic book, that a lot of that was building on years and years of dedication and goodwill on the part of the reader. Making Lex more interesting in a comic is easier because the reader has a whole bunch of background and stories to base his understanding of the character on, so not only will there be less groundwork to do, but the reader will usually be quite open to seeing a character's psychology fleshed out more.

Here we have a 2 hour movie. And we need to say everything there is to say about this version of Lex Luthor in those 2 hours. Frankly, I just don't think the character has enough impact, visually or psychologically, to make a brilliant movie villain. He doesn't look cool or freakish or anything other than bald really. He isn't psychotic like the Joker or Hannibal Lecter. He doesn't have superpowers like Magneto, he lacks the moral complexity of Bill the Butcher, he's not a tragic figure like Khan or Darth Vader. He's just not a movie villain in my opinion.

Terence Stamp is amazing, and his Zod was cool, but I still would argue that (my own fanboyism aside) Zod was not a great movie villain. The fact that he's got a good stare and sounds awesome saying kneel before Zod doesn't make him a great villain in my opinion. He was cool, but also a creature of his time.

The sequel to MOS should have Earth based villains,the story itself should establish Superman as a protector of world.

I like the idea of non-extra terrestrial threats for the sequel. Kinda seems like the natural obvious way to go, instead of just more aliens. Let the threat come from within this time. Let Superman go up against a human foe and also somewhat humanity itself. Of course that foe would be Lex aided by the Intergang fueling the Superman-doubters of humanity. It would be less of a visual feast than what MOS looks to be. The action would be more intimate, but would leave room for Supes to be more of a strategist and "employ" Clark Kent the reporter on a larger scale maybe.
Including Lex would also leave the opportunity to introduce kryptonite, which cant be left out of a full-blown Superman-reboot. Either Lex ultimately builds his own mecha-suit or Metallo could be used, since the movie would still need a big battle-sequence at some point.
And also, a Brainiac-presence should cast a shadow throughout the entire movie.

That could create a more tense thriller'esque style of a movie, like TDK was compared to BB.

__________________"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new"

I like the idea of non-extra terrestrial threats for the sequel. Kinda seems like the natural obvious way to go, instead of just more aliens. Let the threat come from within this time. Let Superman go up against a human foe and also somewhat humanity itself. Of course that foe would be Lex aided by the Intergang fueling the Superman-doubters of humanity. It would be less of a visual feast than what MOS looks to be. The action would be more intimate, but would leave room for Supes to be more of a strategist and "employ" Clark Kent the reporter on a larger scale maybe.
Including Lex would also leave the opportunity to introduce kryptonite, which cant be left out of a full-blown Superman-reboot. Either Lex ultimately builds his own mecha-suit or Metallo could be used, since the movie would still need a big battle-sequence at some point.
And also, a Brainiac-presence should cast a shadow throughout the entire movie.

That could create a more tense thriller'esque style of a movie, like TDK was compared to BB.

Indeed. Human r the worst enemy to the world. Would like to see superman dealing with the man-made disasters like 2012... only then the physical battle when he is kinda exhausted.

__________________
“Everything you can imagine is real.”
― Pablo Picasso

Apologies, I probably haven't expressed my point clearly - Lex Luthor, although I think he's a good villain (I like Lex more than I like the Joker), is in my opinion simply not that interesting cinematically. He doesn't translate well into a movie villain. In movies you don't have the time to establish a character like you do in a comic book run or a tv series, so effective villains need to be captivating or at the very least have a good visual gimmick.

Lex Luthor hasn't been a successful movie villain. I like Gene Hackman but his Lex was little more than comic relief, and definitely nowhere close to being a timeless movie villain. Kevin Spacey's Lex was boring and had no defining psychology.

Think about all the truly great movie villains. Darth Vader, The Joker, Hannibal Lecter, Anton Ciguhr, Bill the Butcher, Magneto, there are all larger than life characters, and they are either exceptionally archetypal (Ciguhr, Joker, Darth Vader, Lecter) or extremely complex and borderline sympathetic (Bill the Butcher, Magneto), sometimes both.

Lex Luthor has never really been all that complex, and every time the comic have managed to make him seem a little deeper or more sympathetic, you must realise that because this was in a comic book, that a lot of that was building on years and years of dedication and goodwill on the part of the reader. Making Lex more interesting in a comic is easier because the reader has a whole bunch of background and stories to base his understanding of the character on, so not only will there be less groundwork to do, but the reader will usually be quite open to seeing a character's psychology fleshed out more.

Here we have a 2 hour movie. And we need to say everything there is to say about this version of Lex Luthor in those 2 hours. Frankly, I just don't think the character has enough impact, visually or psychologically, to make a brilliant movie villain. He doesn't look cool or freakish or anything other than bald really. He isn't psychotic like the Joker or Hannibal Lecter. He doesn't have superpowers like Magneto, he lacks the moral complexity of Bill the Butcher, he's not a tragic figure like Khan or Darth Vader. He's just not a movie villain in my opinion.

Terence Stamp is amazing, and his Zod was cool, but I still would argue that (my own fanboyism aside) Zod was not a great movie villain. The fact that he's got a good stare and sounds awesome saying kneel before Zod doesn't make him a great villain in my opinion. He was cool, but also a creature of his time.

Neither Gene Hackman nor Kevin Spacey played Lex Luthor, not really anyway, as much as Tommy Lee Jones played Two-Face.

Also, your line of reasoning makes no sense, almost every comic book that fleshes out a character is based on previous appearances. Here's an example of stories that make Lex a deeper character- Luthor: Man of Steel. It's a story based on the "continuity" of the DCU, but owed no real allegiance to it. It's entirely standalone and explores purely Lex, and why he hates Superman.

The entire reason Lex is such a good villain is because he represents how driven, and unnaturally focused humanity can be when we absolutely despise someone. He represents the shallowest, avaricious, petty and most hateful aspects that humanity has to offer. He is the absolute worst of us and also displays the potential we have in all of us, just like Superman does, he is his antithesis.

And the best thing about that from a narrative point of view is that he doesn't even realise it. He genuinely believes that he is the hero here. The Superman philosophy of Nietzsche dictates that the Superman is the pinnacle of human achievement, the peak- or from the view of the cynic- the end. The end of humanity. Lex has devoted his entire life to trying to make humanity better, and then a god comes in and does it all differently, and openly declares himself to be the end of humanity's progress, and Lex is the only one who can see the harm he is doing, so the responsibility to save them is upon him.

The reason Lex is the most dangerous villain is because, like Joker, he would risk everything to defeat their hero. Zod wouldn't dare lose the lives of all his companions, Brainiac wouldn't lose his collection etc. But Lex would risk the lives of every single man, woman and child on the planet, if it meant he could kill Superman.

And if these films are only 2 hours, I'm already disappointed.

__________________
*\S/T*"But that's the thing about Batman. Batman thinks of everything.""There's always a way. When the odds are impossible- do the impossible."

Neither Gene Hackman nor Kevin Spacey played Lex Luthor, not really anyway, as much as Tommy Lee Jones played Two-Face.

Also, your line of reasoning makes no sense, almost every comic book that fleshes out a character is based on previous appearances. Here's an example of stories that make Lex a deeper character- Luthor: Man of Steel. It's a story based on the "continuity" of the DCU, but owed no real allegiance to it. It's entirely standalone and explores purely Lex, and why he hates Superman.

The entire reason Lex is such a good villain is because he represents how driven, and unnaturally focused humanity can be when we absolutely despise someone. He represents the shallowest, avaricious, petty and most hateful aspects that humanity has to offer. He is the absolute worst of us and also displays the potential we have in all of us, just like Superman does, he is his antithesis.

And the best thing about that from a narrative point of view is that he doesn't even realise it. He genuinely believes that he is the hero here. The Superman philosophy of Nietzsche dictates that the Superman is the pinnacle of human achievement, the peak- or from the view of the cynic- the end. The end of humanity. Lex has devoted his entire life to trying to make humanity better, and then a god comes in and does it all differently, and openly declares himself to be the end of humanity's progress, and Lex is the only one who can see the harm he is doing, so the responsibility to save them is upon him.

The reason Lex is the most dangerous villain is because, like Joker, he would risk everything to defeat their hero. Zod wouldn't dare lose the lives of all his companions, Brainiac wouldn't lose his collection etc. But Lex would risk the lives of every single man, woman and child on the planet, if it meant he could kill Superman.

Considering the disappointment of SR and how people complained that Superman had no one to fight at his full power in it; even if Lex is written substantially very well for any MOS Sequel, there's no way that Warner Bros. and those in charge would bank on just him being the ONLY villain for a sequel; there WILL be at least one more villain that can give Superman a good physical fight; especially after MOS had given audiences the super fights that they were looking for.

Considering the disappointment of SR and how people complained that Superman had no one to fight at his full power in it; even if Lex is written substantially very well for any MOS Sequel, there's no way that Warner Bros. and those in charge would bank on just him being the ONLY villain for a sequel; there WILL be at least one more villain that can give Superman a good physical fight; especially after MOS had given audiences the super fights that they were looking for.

If that's so important, they could have Lex have had designed/funded/constructed a mech as some defence department project. Similar to in the animated series how he was always building mechanized infantry for the military. (Tried to find photos of that yellow mech in the first ep of the S:TAS, but I can't seem too. I think even in the animated World's Finest movie he had a whole armada he wanted to sell to the military, that he was trying to get Wayne to help fund as well. God I loved those shows as a kid!)

If that's so important, they could have Lex have had designed/funded/constructed a mech as some defence department project. Similar to in the animated series how he was always building mechanized infantry for the military. (Tried to find photos of that yellow mech in the first ep of the S:TAS, but I can't seem too. I think even in the animated World's Finest movie he had a whole armada he wanted to sell to the military, that he was trying to get Wayne to help fund as well. God I loved those shows as a kid!)

I do personally think it's important from a entertainment value. In my honest opinion, it's not wise to put the world's strongest hero into a film without giving him a credible physical threat to face as well.

If they can go about doing that mechanical/battle armor suit without making it look like a rehash of both Iron Man and from MOS itself (due to Zod donning a armor suit as well in order to enhance his strength) then I'd be up for it.

However, if I had my way, if they wanted to stick with earth based villains for the sequel, I'd have Luther create the Superman Revenge Squad (3 mid-level physical villains at the most), with Superman's final physical struggle being him going in a fist fight with Luther with Kryptonite radiation playing a factor into it in the way that they did for their scuffle at the end of the Birthright series. A fight between those two without powers or enhanced suits being involved could be very personal and more brutal if done right as well.

Well Batman did save Gotham from total destruction twice, so there's that.

I agree. In addition, I think the general audience took the release dates of BB and TDK as bookending the main period of Batman’s activity. That’s three years - plenty of time to establish a reputation, a legacy and the legend. Even if (as some analytical fans have concluded) it was only a year, it might be assumed that the enigmatic Batman was making his presence known (and making the newspapers) at least once a week during this period. That’s over 50 appearances - again, enough to create a legendary status. And this doesn’t include the speculation and rumors that would have percolated during the mysterious 8-year exile; nor does it include Batman’s dramatic reappearance and martyrdom. Sounds like enough stuff to make an indelible impact - and a notable career.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

...would have accepted it if he actually killed him.

But if your objection is that the accumulated Batman time wasn’t sufficient, killing him off wouldn’t fix that.